Tom Bower's book on Meghan Markle

[SmileyFaces12]

It's out next week, titled 'Revenge'. I've ordered it already!

I don't know when Williams made that comment but it was at a fashion show and she didn't start her clothing line until 2019. So quite a while after the VF interview. Things change.

Following up on that - it’s not that the journalist is now saying “she’s was actually a cow” or anything like that. So it’s not like you would have expected him to be saying that at the time. He is just telling the behind the scenes story of the story.

For example, he had been told beforehand that Meghan wouldn’t be talking about her relationship with Harry - but when he asked her a question, she happily talked about it, in quite pointed terms “We are in love…it’s a special time” etc.

When the article was published, with the tone being “here is the soon to be wife of Prince Harry” the writer says that Meghan was unhappy because she had wanted the story to be focussed solely on her and her achievements, whereas the truth was Vanity Fair wouldn’t have been writing about her at all if it wasn’t for her relationship. They also had doubts about the stories she had told to establish her credentials, so didn’t want to major on them. The Palace also wasn’t happy as they felt Meghan was muddying the waters of promoting herself off the back of her relationship with Prince Harry, which wasn’t how they worked - but there was nothing they could do.

Bloody well said, @ObjectiveMummy.

From angry youth to barrister to bottom feeder. What a twit.

It’s all relative, isn’t it - somehow I think had it been his highly critical biography of Prince Charles, “Rebel Prince” that we were discussing on this thread there are several posters that would have been praising the impeccable investigative rigour of this BBC Panorama journalist and editor of more than 17 years…😂

Maybe so. Who knows. Different strokes for different folks

Why do you care so much?

Because these are important issues. We care about the monarchy because these are our leaders, whose actions directly affect us. Not everyone cares, of course, but the ones that do recognise that it will make a big difference to our lives if the monarchy continues, falls, or changes. That's why examine them all, and not just H & M. The roles that they occupy and the characters that they present on the world stage all have a part to play in what happens to us.

We care about the monarchy because these are our leaders, whose actions directly affect us

What? QE might be head of the Church but she is not my leader. The only actions that directly affect us are that we pay an enormous amount of money for them and they can choose to avoid a lot of the laws that us general public have no choice but to adhere to.

What? QE might be head of the Church but she is not my leader.

She is your Head of State if you’re a citizen of the U.K. (and numerous other countries). You might not care about the constitution, but it is the constitution.

If someone has the title Head of State of a country, then the definition of leader of that country is a forgone conclusion. You may reject these definitions on a personal level, but you are still governed by a (constitutional) monarchy and the actions of that institution will determine the kind of life you lead.

You may reject these definitions on a personal level, but you are still governed by a (constitutional) monarchy and the actions of that institution will determine the kind of life you lead

Is that with the Queen's Assent on laws? And having personal exemptions on over 160 laws that apply to all of us?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

I think a lot of people are going to come off badly in this book, not just Harry and Meghan.

Harry's friends sound horrible in today's excerpt

archive.ph/RYQJB

Like other shooting weekends, Harry was looking forward to endless banter, jokes — and a lot of drinking. He had not anticipated Meghan’s reaction. Their jokes involving sexism, feminism and transgender people ricocheted around the living-rooms and dining-rooms. Without hesitation, Meghan challenged every guest whose conversation contravened her values. According to some of Harry’s friends, again and again she reprimanded them about the slightest inappropriate nuance. Nobody was exempt. Harry’s world would not be her world.

They did not want to be financially accountable but the palace trumped that by making it a charity and subject to charity law.

This is an extremely interesting point.

Especially so given the subsequent transfer of funds originating in the Royal Foundation to the opaque Travalyst - a limited company under Harry's control and with no requirement for transparency as to their final destination.

The excerpts are great. I'm going to buy it for my holiday

I don't disagree at all. Their behaviour on all fronts is hugely important to the country, ranging from the siphoning off of taxpayer funds to H sitting on a dusty pavement watching a parade and pretending that 'normal' is great to what Meghan or Kate wear and who pays for it.

And thanks to you too @wordler for the latest excerpt.

Excellent public service from the link posters on this thread 🙂

Weird that you think that’s riposte.

Yes the Queen’s legislation exemptions; Charles’ black spider memos; The Sussex attempt to give their Foundation a non-charitable status; Cambridge’s private jet hypocrisy; the sheer cost of the whole apparatus, these are all reasons to take an interest in how the monarchy - and this the country - are run.

Of course I take an interest, I wouldn't be on these threads if I didn't.

But I don't feel positively about the RF. I used to. No more. For very many reasons.

haha that made me laugh. Prince Charles hates Paul Burrell and ''people like that''.

I think we ended up down this side alley, @Roussette because @MaulPerton said “We care about the monarchy because these are our leaders, whose actions directly affect us.” To which you responded that the Queen was merely head of the church and not your leader…

Fascinating extracts, thank you.

Yes, thank you, and to the other posters who have shared extracts.

What strikes me about these extracts is how Bower’s account is very close to what is already known. It does suggest that the interpretations for behaviour and motivations for events that journalists were writing about at the time and that people were speculating about were, in fact, quite accurate.

Usually a lurker but I can't take the glaring inaccuracies in this reportedly "well researched" book. It's almost a joke.

I mean, these mistakes are basic.

Two things. Firstly, he claims Toni Morrison, Bonnie Hammer and Diana Fossey [WHO IS DEAD] were on the Vogue cover. A quick google search shows that's an easily disprovable lie.

Secondly, he claims that it was Meghan's version of events that indicated Thomas was too ill to attend the wedding after an alleged heart attack. I must be dreaming the part where TMZ broke the news that Thomas had a heart attack with Samantha backing up his claims all over the media. Going as far accusing her of cruelty for not calling off the wedding and flying over to see sick Thomas.

I find the excerpts utterly bunkers if i'm honest. Apparently the P&G letter writing exercise didn't happen either. Nickelodeon and it's producers made up that TV spot over 25 years ago with a young Meghan to keep up a lie.

twitter.com/NickRewind/status/1125399474048839681

Meghan's first TV commercial with Reitmans aired in 2015, over a year before she met Harry.

twitter.com/Jasamgurlie/status/1548731109839601668

twitter.com/PaganTrelawney/status/1548808332370235392

Also, I have to laugh at Bower. Meghan calling out banter involving sexism, feminism and transgender people is supposed to make her look bad? I'm glad Meghan called them out, didn't laugh off offensive jokes to fit in with that crew.

twitter.com/BenFletch/status/1548737065285783555

twitter.com/PaganTrelawney/status/1548801491057758209

If someone has the title Head of State of a country, then the definition of leader of that country is a forgone conclusion. You may reject these definitions on a personal level, but you are still governed by a (constitutional) monarchy and the actions of that institution will determine the kind of life you lead.

@MaulPerton you're significantly overegging the role of the Crown here.

The British Monarch is not the 'leader'. He or she is the Head of State, an increasingly ceremonial position since 1688. Actually since the Civil War.

The British people are not governed by a constitutional monarchy. The executive branch of government is nominally the Crown and the Cabinet. The legislative branch is nominally the Crown, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords. There is also a judicial branch, independent of the other two branches. The Crown's role as an active player in the government is a polite fiction.

The actions of the Crown have no bearing whatsoever on the life of British citizens.

I don’t think anyone cares. As long as the book is bashing M+H it’s absolutely fine and all fact.
had this been about K+W on the other hand ….

Im not a great Meghan fan but I’d have stood up & applauded her for calling these people out. Good for her.